Against the head

Swiwi.

Yes.

.ak

jm08 wrote: »

Are you not getting yourself in a twist over nothing. Frankie is probably not even getting a fee for most of his clients they are so far down the food chain.

Should Brian O'Driscoll who has an interest in Ikon (and who is described as a mentor to their clients) not be allowed make any comments on any players because it is a clear conflict of interest as well.

Personally, I think the world would be a lot poorer if you went down this route. As I've said before, Ireland is too small to worry over conflict of interests about MOTM awards given out by TV pundits.

Who's getting twist into what?

Frankie gets a fee from his clients, he doesn't work for free.

He also comments on them on TV, either in a positive or negative.

Those are just observations of fact. Nothing more. I was just responding to Neil3030's post...

jm08

Hagz wrote: »

It should be noted that David Wallace wasn't a client of Frankie Sheehan. He had him listed as one of his clients on his website but Wallace was never actually his client. Wallace was a client of a sports management company called Essentially.

Yes. Frankie organised some speaking engagements and sponsorships for David Wallace. Same I think with ROG.

jm08

.ak wrote: »

Who's getting twist into what?

Frankie gets a fee from his clients, he doesn't work for free.

He also comments on them on TV, either in a positive or negative.

Those are just observations of fact. Nothing more. I was just responding to Neil3030's post...

Its usually a percentage, not a fee. Most/all of Frankie clients would be on very small money.

Hagz

Hagz wrote: »

It should be noted that David Wallace wasn't a client of Frankie Sheehan. He had him listed as one of his clients on his website but Wallace was never actually his client. Wallace was a client of a sports management company called Essentially.

Many links say otherwise.

Whiff Of Cordite has a few words on Sheahan's conflict of interest, the second piece once again refers to them working together at Front Row.
Balls.ie on a separate issue mention the same relationship.
boards.ie discusses the conflict of interest before and the same comes up.
edit: and I see a copy/paste job from a Sunday Business Post article above (though the link is broken now)
archived page here from Front Row sports management too...
Is it a common misconception?

jm08

TommyOM wrote: »

Yep Tomas O'Leary was definitely on his books at one stage

"A number of Sheahan’s former team mates from his Munster and Ireland playing days have signed up with Front Row, including current Irish internationals Tomás O’Leary, David Wallace and Mick O’Driscoll. Sheahan will handle their commercial interests within Ireland."

Source is Sunday Business Post via http://www.munsterfans.com/threads/20152-Frankie/page2

Commercial interests ... not contract negotiations.

.ak

jm08 wrote: »

Its usually a percentage, not a fee. Most/all of Frankie clients would be on very small money.

Money is money. Benefit is the word I used.

Hagz

Deleted User wrote: »

Many links say otherwise.

Is it a common misconception?

I know for a fact David Wallace was always a client of Essentially and Frankie Sheehan got in a spot of trouble for advertising David Wallace as one of his clients. He might have organised a couple gigs for Wallace, but any contract dealings would have gone through Essentially.

Hagz

Hagz wrote: »

I know for a fact David Wallace was always a client of Essentially and Frankie Sheehan got in a spot of trouble for advertising David Wallace as one of his clients. He might have organised a couple gigs for Wallace, but any contract dealings would have gone through Essentially.

link to another boardsie saying this here actually. And a follow up article from the Indo echoing it.

Can't find anything else though.

If true, it invalidates the MoTM award as evidence of Sheahan acting upon a conflict of interest. However it doesn't remove the conflict.

jm08

.ak wrote: »

Money is money. Benefit is the word I used.

Frankie's main business now seems to be Pendulum in Ireland. They had a conference a month ago in the conference centre which had Deepak Chopra as keynote speaker. (1800 attendees). He had Chris Hadfield speaking at his first conference.


It seems he is winding down from sports management now as he has a lot fewer clients now than he had when he started out. For instance, he isn't representing David Kilkoyne anymore. He had them when they were basically starting out.

Frankie is involved with Tourism Ireland in developing a strategy for Sport Tourism in Ireland among other things.

In the scheme of things, a MOTM award is irrelevant IMO.

www.pendulumsummit.com

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

link to another boardsie saying this here actually. And a follow up article from the Indo echoing it.

Can't find anything else though.

If true, it invalidates the MoTM award as evidence of Sheahan acting upon a conflict of interest. However it doesn't remove the conflict.

So, what would you want to happen to all these pundits (Frankie, BOD, Ryan Constable) who we know have player agent conflict of interests?

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

So, what would you want to happen to all these pundits (Frankie, BOD, Ryan Constable) who we know have player agent conflict of interests?

I thought you said there was no conflict of interest?

I've never had a solution. I've just been annoyed that you tried to downplay the existence of an obvious conflict many many times.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought you said there was no conflict of interest?

I've never had a solution. I've just been annoyed that you tried to downplay the existence of an obvious conflict many many times.

I don't think its a conflict of interest. I actually see something good in it because at least these pundits are fully aware of what professional rugby is all about now. Punditry would be all the poorer if say someone like Brian O'Driscoll was excluded from punditry because of his commercial interests.

Ryan Constable has so many so called 'conflicts of interests' they nullify themselves.

So we've gotten to the heart of it; conflicts of interest are a good thing

TommyOM

jm08 wrote: »

I don't think its a conflict of interest. I actually see something good in it because at least these pundits are fully aware of what professional rugby is all about now. Punditry would be all the poorer if say someone like Brian O'Driscoll was excluded from punditry because of his commercial interests.

Ryan Constable has so many so called 'conflicts of interests' they nullify themselves.

:rolleyes:

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

So we've gotten to the heart of it; conflicts of interest are a good thing

Not what I posted.

I actually see something good in it* because at least these pundits are fully aware of what professional rugby is all about now.

*'it' refers to having people who are in touch with the modern game (like Ryan Constable, Brian O'Driscoll & Frankie Sheahan).

Neil3030

.ak wrote: »

Not all of them benefit from player contracts though...

True, but a picture is being painted that his COI is sullying an otherwise pristine, bias-free and self-interest-free industry, and that's not entirely fair imo.

For example, I would classify his his contribution to a game as a co-comm, culminating in him awarding a player on his books a MOTM award, as a biased decision, but an ultimately harmless one.

However I would classify George Hook's contribution as a panelist, where he targets individual players, singles them out for tirades of often baseless criticism (all to keep himself as the main centre of attention), as both biased and potentially harmful.

Of course, this is complete whataboutery, but if we are going to have a consensus on media standards, I think this point needs to be made.

phog

thomond2006 wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with the point Buer makes? I don't know anything about how agents 'sell' their clients to clubs but I'm sure any kind of individual awards form part of their profile. Why should they be allowed to be in a position where they can influence that? I've said it before but I don't really blame the agents since if they're given a platform... The broadcasters are at fault.

I just cannot accept that any potential employer will give any credence to how many MotM awards a player gets.

If players had any mass in these type awards then they'd make more of the occasion of the receipt of the "award" then they currently do.

Can you name the player who won the MotM awards in Munster's last 5 Pro12 games, the Pro12 site doesn't even mention them sometimes.

Tbh, I think its all a thing of nothing.

Goldstein

Trying to watch this earlier and RTE Player crashes yet again with "Uncaught Error 1009".

Ergo, here are 14 golf ads you can't skip. Wonderful.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

I just cannot accept that any potential employer will give any credence to how many MotM awards a player gets.

If players had any mass in these type awards then they'd make more of the occasion of the receipt of the "award" then they currently do.

Can you name the player who won the MotM awards in Munster's last 5 Pro12 games, the Pro12 site doesn't even mention them sometimes.

Tbh, I think its all a thing of nothing.

Isn't Frankie more into the commercial side of things rather than the contracts? In which case a higher profile would be more beneficial to his clients, in a far greater way than in contracts?

Wang King

molloyjh wrote: »

Isn't Frankie more into the commercial side of things rather than the contracts? In which case a higher profile would be more beneficial to his clients, in a far greater way than in contracts?

Since people here didn't know who his current clients are and had to go searching, it's probably not of any benefit to anyone

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

Isn't Frankie more into the commercial side of things rather than the contracts? In which case a higher profile would be more beneficial to his clients, in a far greater way than in contracts?

I've no idea but I'm very doubtful that a mention during commentary/analysis or a MotM award adds value to any player.

Perhaps business people booking these players for events or those negotiating contracts are more stupid than I think they are.

wittycynic

Yes there is a conflict of interest for Frankie, but it is probably not any more significant than any other of the panelists.

For example, two medical researchers are investigating the effects of smoking on health. One of the medical researcher's work is part-funded by a tobacco company, while the other is friends with a number of members of the board of a tobacco company. Who is more conflicted, which one would you trust to produce the most honest research, would you trust either of them?

That example probably roughly equates to hiring analysts who have a financial interest in certain players and analysts who have a strong personal relationship with certain players. Neither can be trusted to give an honest opinion and to claim that one is definitely more or less conflicted than then other is to presume knowledge that we can't hope to know.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

I've no idea but I'm very doubtful that a mention during commentary/analysis or a MotM award adds value to any player.

Perhaps business people booking these players for events or those negotiating contracts are more stupid than I think they are.

They aren't. They don't sign/hire players for their actual abilities. They do it for their profile. And if you have Frankie on Sky Sports and RTE etc constantly bigging his clients up their public profile is naturally increased as a result. Making them more marketable. How much of an actual impact it has is questionable but that's not going to prevent Frankie from doing what he can. Which then colours his input into these programmes.

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

They aren't. They don't sign/hire players for their actual abilities. They do it for their profile. And if you have Frankie on Sky Sports and RTE etc constantly bigging his clients up their public profile is naturally increased as a result. Making them more marketable. How much of an actual impact it has is questionable but that's not going to prevent Frankie from doing what he can. Which then colours his input into these programmes.

Their profile is probably based on their own gametime and success of team rather than a mention during rugby programme.

sydthebeat

phog wrote: »

Their profile is probably based on their own gametime and success of team rather than a mention during rugby programme.

no, profiles can be artificially raised by constant mentioning on pundit panels.

and after all, thats the core responsibility of an agent

phog

sydthebeat wrote: »

no, profiles can be artificially raised by constant mentioning on pundit panels.

and after all, thats the core responsibility of an agent

Quantify it, who did Frankie mention last week, how many are his clients. Were any mentioned in a positive manner that was undeserved?

sydthebeat

phog wrote: »

Quantify it, who did Frankie mention last week, how many are his clients. Were any mentioned in a positive manner that was undeserved?

makes no difference to the explicit conflict of interest of having an agent on a TV panel talking up his clients. Its so obvious its laughable.

jm08

sydthebeat wrote: »

makes no difference to the explicit conflict of interest of having an agent on a TV panel talking up his clients. Its so obvious its laughable.

So what would your thoughts be on Jonathan Sexton being paid by Denis O'Brien who owns Newstalk (and a few other radio stations in Ireland) as well as owning a 29.9% stakeholder in Indep. News & Media who 3/4s of the journalists in Ireland work for (including Thornley who works for Newstalk).

Should we discard everything that is ever said and written about Sexton because that is a huge conflict of interest?

Teferi

jm08 wrote: »

So what would your thoughts be on Jonathan Sexton being paid by Denis O'Brien who owns Newstalk (and a few other radio stations in Ireland) as well as owning a 29.9% stakeholder in Indep. News & Media who 3/4s of the journalists in Ireland work for (including Thornley who works for Newstalk).

Should we discard everything that is ever said and written about Sexton because that is a huge conflict of interest?

Google: "Define Whataboutery".